You're free to leave at any time. Don't stick around hockey if you're unhappy. Plonk.
30 years of Bettman
- Thread starter LadyStanley
- Start date
BKIslandersFan
F*** off
Under anti-trust laws NHL can't prevent an existing owner that already owns the team from moving the team himself as long as said team isn't leglly bound to the current city (aka lease agreement). And you can thank the NFL vs Al davis ordeal for that. The issue with the coyotes was that the person tried to use the courts to bypass the NHL to get a team to hamilton and the courts agreed with the league that the NHL does have a say on who ends up owning the team.
Ah, and I should also leave my country if I don't like the politicians, huh? What a fatuous statement, as if voicing legitimate gripes and hoping things get better automatically means you shouldn't bother sticking around the thing you ultimately love.
BKIslandersFan
F*** off
Do you have any response to the actual points I made? Did you even read my post where I acknowledge he makes the owners happy while also degrading the fan experience? Can you contribute in any meaningful way to the conversation at all?
Ted Hoffman
The other Rick Zombo
- Dec 15, 2002
- 29,262
- 8,688
1. Those of us not ripping Bettman at every chance are not Bettman supporters, and claiming such is a straw man remark.
2. I don't know many, if any, people who've said "the owners like him so he must be doing a great job." Again, that kind of remark is a straw man take. I *have* seen us point out things that make the owners want to keep him around, which is a different POV.
3. Fans don't decide commissioners. Owners do. I thought (still think) Paul Tagliabue was a spineless stooge whose accomplishments as commissioner could have been done by a retail store cardboard display. What I thought didn't matter; NFL owners likes him enough to keep him around for however long he was there.
4. To use your line of argument: virtually all the anti-Bettman crowd never has realistic idea of what could / should have been done better, that both the owners and players would go for. They especially don't have realistic ideas grounded in the fact that after the John Zeigler era closed, owners were trying to cope with controlling player salaries and movement even as some of them were taking advantage of those new-found tools. While I can (have, probably will again) offer realistic ideas on how things could have been different and better, it would be great if you and your ilk would do the same and not offer up "move ____ to ______" and "have a luxury tax" and "moar ESPN" and such - all of which are never happening and in the case of ESPN, has been discussed at length as to why the network really doesn't give a shit about the league other than making sure no one else has all the rights.
Arthur Morgan
Registered User
for those without a sub. its worth grabbing not going to lie. But Id wait till you see 12 months for 1$ offer.
then u unsub they will offer another year at 1.99 or maybe less a month.
for like 2$ a month starting sometime next year its not bad
then u unsub they will offer another year at 1.99 or maybe less a month.
for like 2$ a month starting sometime next year its not bad
edog37
Registered User
no it wasn't. He clearly had issues, but the NHL didn't take the team over during that timeframe.
List of Pittsburgh Penguins owners - Wikipedia
edog37
Registered User
so you're big arguments can be boiled down to who makes an overpriced jersey for fans to buy, digital ads which maximize revenue, & the meaningless all-star weekend. Good to know. Here's a rebuttal for each point.
1) NHL jerseys have been overpriced for decades. You think they were cheap when CCM produced replica jerseys? And they were pretty flimsy back then. The league licenses the company to make products & sell them. No where does any sports league stand behind the quality of a licensed company's product.
2) Digital ads. You get league revenues flatlined coming out of the pandemic? These digital ads mean the league can actually raise additional revenue which has cap implications. They are slightly annoying, but if you are paying attention, it becomes background noise.
3) The All-Star weekend. Do you really those guys are playing hockey during that farce? It's a show for sponsors, nothing more. Hasn't had meaning in decades. I'd rather they just cancel the whole thing & that goes for any league. Did you see the Pro Bowl this year? It was flag football. At least the NHL plays a semblance of the regular game.
The owners do like him, which is good because he works for them. The fans have never counted in this equation, so not sure what you are truly griping about.
BKIslandersFan
F*** off
Your entire nonsensical argument was Bettman is doing a bad job because he doesn’t make you happy. That’s not his job.
Tom ServoMST3K
In search of a Steinbach Hero
What bettman excels at is being a magnet for hate that would otherwise go to the owners.
He also kicks the PA's ass every lockout.
I really think commissioner should be empowered above owners, and should have some duties to the average fan, but that's just not what the position is.
I think with different leadership (and by leadership i mean power-owners, not bettman) hockey could be in a better place popularity-wise (and make owners way more money), but even with perfect decisions hockey is still only the #4 sport - maybe 3A at best, and no one makes every right decision.
If you asked me what his worst decision was, I'd actually point to the current Canadian TV deal - he should have pushed to keep multiple networks included in their national program.
He also kicks the PA's ass every lockout.
I really think commissioner should be empowered above owners, and should have some duties to the average fan, but that's just not what the position is.
I think with different leadership (and by leadership i mean power-owners, not bettman) hockey could be in a better place popularity-wise (and make owners way more money), but even with perfect decisions hockey is still only the #4 sport - maybe 3A at best, and no one makes every right decision.
If you asked me what his worst decision was, I'd actually point to the current Canadian TV deal - he should have pushed to keep multiple networks included in their national program.
Sharkbomb
Registered User
- Jul 20, 2022
- 493
- 1,000
I don't think there is a single owner in the NHL that has regretted the lockouts, they ended up in a much better position following each one. There's a reason the guy has held the job for so long.
Ah, so your definition of "the NHL is run so well" is multiple lockouts so that the owners can maximize their profits? Again, Yes, the owners like him. But the fact remains that he has sacrificed the integrity of the sport and of the league in service of those higher profits. That's the point I'm making.
BB79
Registered User
- Apr 30, 2011
- 4,088
- 4,600
Ugh, I for one can't stand them. Digital ads on the boards/ice during TV broadcasts are annoying and more importantly distracting. Especially the animated ones. The ones superimposed on the end glass that came out a few years back were annoying enough. The ones on the boards take the cake. Enough is enough.
Get used to seeing more ads on uniforms and the ice, it's coming. Start small with one, by 2040 they'll be covered head to toe. Nothing is sacred anymore .they'll probably find a way to put ads on the nets next. Wrap the goal posts or replace the top shelf with a solid surface to put an ad on it
Barclay Donaldson
Registered User
Québec could probably support a team. But, they wouldn't add anything. The NHL goes after new money. Québec would be close to the smallest market in the league next to Winnipeg, and Winnipeg's goal each year is to break even. The only time they really make much money is when they make deep playoff runs. Their management and ownership is on record (somewhere) saying just that. Québec would be in the same boat. That doesn't add much for the league.
Saskatchewan? Regina and Saskatoon both have metro areas around 300.000. The province could not come anywhere close support NHL teams, and to even suggest they could is either a sign of absolute cluelessness or of mental illness.
Hamilton would be blocked by the Leafs and/or Sabres as has been discussed countless times. They also don't have a NHL arena and won't have one in the future either.
As for portraying Canada as a hockey haven, you need to acknowledge the reality of the situation. Winnipeg is averaging barely over 14.000 people per game, well shy of the 15.500 seat capacity of the Canada Life Center. That is worse than the Arizona Coyotes pre-Covid attendance in 2019-20 and their move to Mullet Arena. Mind you that is taking into account the Coyotes as a perennial Western Conference bottom feeder and the Jets having spent this season as an expectant playoff team. You're simplifying a problem and throwing out solution when the problem is significantly more complex than you're explaining or possibly capable of understanding and then offering a solution that actually isn't a financially wise solution.
Ted Hoffman
The other Rick Zombo
- Dec 15, 2002
- 29,262
- 8,688
That's not what Sharkbomb said, or what anyone else has said. Quit making up straw man arguments.
1. Please show all your work on this.
2. Especially show your work that proves it's all Bettman, and that none of it is on the owners.
3. Really show your work on how he, or anyone else, has "sacrificed the integrity of the sport."
WarriorofTime
Registered User
- Jul 3, 2010
- 28,995
- 17,168
WarriorofTime
Registered User
- Jul 3, 2010
- 28,995
- 17,168
I think people now and forever struggle with understanding that Bettman's education and entire career is that of a lawyer, not of a businessman. He is NOT the CEO of the NHL, he is a facilitator, he works on behalf of the 32 owners of the NHL, a league that is owned by each of its various franchises in equal shares. The owners are his bosses. He brokers deals amongst the owners and in representing them in negotiations with various other parties. He is a contract man, when it comes to the overall business strategy... he participates sure but he is not the lead man that in charge of forming and coming up with a grand vision. That is the job of the owners collectively.
He replied to my post where I was talking about the NHL being run well, I agreed that Bettman has kept his job because the owners like him, but the fan experience has suffered. I asked if that was what he considered "the NHL being run well". It's not a strawman to ask if that's what a person means when it's literally in the post they are responding to and it wasn't clear what their meaning was.
The work is all in this thread my friend. The lockouts, the digital ads, the active cover-up of concussions and their deadly consequences, the refusal to move franchises that clearly ought to be moved, the partnership with sports better companies and the constant pushing of betting on the viewer of basically every game, the mishandling of rule enforcement both in officiating and in supplemental discipline which is now openly corrupt and has been for decades to the level that suspensions are widely considered to be a roll of the wheel with zero consistency and are massively biased.
It seems to me the only way to excuse any of these things is to 1. Downplay them or 2. try and argue Bettman wasn't responsible for them. Of course Bettman is not all powerful, and of course he answers to the owners, but the legacy of his tenure as commissioner is to degrade the integrity of the sport and the fan experience.
Here's an article reporting on e-mails of Bettman assuring owners they aren't legally liable for concussions so they don't have to bother changing the rules (in other words they don't actually care about player safety) Owners warned Bettman over NHL’s concussion stand, e-mails reveal
Here's an article reporting on Bettman publically denying a link between concussions and CTE (a degenerative brain condition) Gary Bettman dismissed a direct link between hockey concussions and CTE. Here’s what a doctor says - National | Globalnews.ca
Here's an article reporting on e-mails between Colin Campbell and the director of officiating where Campbell complained that a ref called a penalty on his son who was playing in the NHL at the time. Campbell was neither fired nor punished for this egregious corruption, and in fact he is still employed as NHL brass to this very day. He also targets specific players and refs that he seems to have a personal grudge against. Have Savard emails exposed NHL's Colin Campbell as corrupt?
Here's an archived article where the referee with the all time most games reffed, Kerry Fraser, writes that he thinks a suspension was not given because it would hurt the King's playoff hopes. ("Given the entire circumstance and magnitude of the illegal hit, I have to believe that the absence of injury to Burrows, and quite possibly a tight playoff race that the defending Stanley Cup Champions are currently engaged in, had to play a part in the decision by the Player Safety Committee not to take further action against Tyler Toffoli.") What state is your league in where the all time leader in games reffed thinks you're making suspension decisions based on how it might effect the playoff race? C'Mon Ref - The lowdown on Toffoli
As for the ads, there are many people on this very forum and this very thread who hate the digital ads so much it essentially ruins the whole experience for them. The lockouts speak for themselves.
WarriorofTime
Registered User
- Jul 3, 2010
- 28,995
- 17,168
Lockouts were the players' fault. Shitty leadership that thought they could get the owners to blink while the League as a whole was losing like $300 million per season. The owners were the ones losing money, they'd rather not lose money and lose a season than cave, and the players were the ones that needed their salaries given their relatively short windows to play. A salary cap was a must, very obvious to everyone, and the players fought tooth and nail to the point that it cost them an entire season. Players Association own fault for believing the words of snake oil salesmen more focused on their own power and prestige than the players best interest.
Ted Hoffman
The other Rick Zombo
- Dec 15, 2002
- 29,262
- 8,688
No, your comment - which, as I'll note later, is in the thread, which I conveniently quoted, and which Sharkbomb never said.
Hence, it's a straw man response.
1. Digital ads - presented by the networks to the owners and approved by the owners as a means of raising revenue. [Spoiler: they've been in other sports, too. For a while now, too.]
2. Active cover-up of concussions, et. al. - not something Bettman did solely on his own while the owners wanted to push to release that information. They're all in together on it, your "proof" to the contrary be damned.
3. Refusal to move franchises - the power to operate a team in a given market is solely granted to the owner of that franchise; their ability to move it elsewhere is subject to the approval of the other owners. It sure as hell is not vested solely in the Office of the Commissioner. If 3/4 of the owners wanted to move [insert team in a market that "doesn't deserve it"] to [insert market that "deserves" a team], they'd do so no matter what Darth Bettman said. Beyond that, if some owner wants to lose $500 million running a team in some market, what business is it of yours? Mine? Anyone else's?
4. Partnerships with sports better [sic] companies - every league is doing this. They're doing it for a$$orted rea$on$.
5. Mishandling of rule enforcement - (1) show your work, then (2) show how that comes at Bettman's direction, without exception.
6. Supplemental discipline is openly corrupt - again, show your work here. Don't spout off about zero consistency, etc. which has been true for years; show how it's suddenly different from the past and that it traces solely back to Bettman. Hopefully, you'll provide specific instances of some quid pro quo between two parties, and not just nebulous I'M SURE BETTMAN WAS IN ON IT! speculation that everyone is just supposed to accept because you say so.
1. No one is doing this. Well, I'll nitpick that - we're "downplaying it" because you're overhyping it and no one is rising up to meet your standards or expectations.
2. No one is saying Bettman has 0% culpability. You're the one saying he's 100% culpable and no one else has a role in it.
3. You're still not explaining how all of this manages to "degrade the integrity of the sport" beyond vague assertions based on your feelings, much less prove how it manages to "degrade ... then fan experience." The last time I checked, there's a shitload of fans buying a shitload of tickets for a shitload of money, and there's also a shitload of people watching a shitload of games (especially on ESPN, which I was reliably told for years would go out of its way to promote the game so much better than NBC Sports or any other network ... evar) - so the fan experience must not be that degraded.
This is a gross misinterpretation of what the article really says. That said, even where owners wanted to change things, they can't unilaterally make changes.
You know who else has to approve of changes? The NHLPA.
You know who's been the bigger road block to changes? The NHLPA, because for all the yapping about player safety they're much more interested in protecting a handful of themselves from more stringent, more severe suspensions than they are protecting the rank-and-file. You know who's the leader on that charge? Their former leader Donald Fehr, who did the exact same thing when leading the MLBPA where he fought to keep MLB from testing for steroids even as it was clear players were juicing up and actually ruining the integrity of the game.
I'm sure it was the evil Gary Bettman that forced Fehr to do it, though, because Bettman is such a super genius. God, Bettman is a f***ing shithead.
Was Bettman wrong? Sure, he was. But if you seriously expect him to openly admit the league's guilt, I've ... you may want to sit down and strap yourself into a chair when I tell about about Paul Tagliabue and Roger Goodell and the NFL.
Campbell is a giant asshole. [But I repeat myself.] You got us all there.
This was, and still is, pure speculation. [For the record: I've been a long-time critic of the Department of "Player Safety" and have on more than a few occasions offered to do the job and ensure consistency is brought to decision-making as much as possible. There's a reason the Do"PS" is what it is, and it has little to do with Bettman and much more to do with "the GMs and players want it that way."]
When people start a response with "so" it essentially ruins my whole listening experience. I manage to dig deep and summon the courage to get the f*** over it. People who hate digital ads should do the same, and I'm someone who's hated digital ads from the moment they appeared.
As has been mentioned 17,007 times, the owners decided to do lockouts - not Bettman. The owners could have (and in 1995, did) decide to end a lockout over Bettman's wishes. They didn't (except for 1995), because they knew what they wanted and weren't going to end until they got it ... even if it meant losing an entire season or more.
In short: we're left with (1) Bettman, like other commissioners in other leagues, didn't admit the league's guilt on CTE and concussions, which would have immediately exposed the league's 30 owners (and probably a number of others) to direct legal liability, and (2) Colin Campbell is a f***ing asshat who wasn't fired and probably should never have been in charge of supervising the average rock in the first place.
Damn, what degradation of the integrity of the sport. I can't believe Bettman doesn't have war crimes charges from The Hague out on him for all of that.
This may be petty of me, but where have I ever said it's "100% Bettman and no one else"? I bring this up, since when I phrased A QUESTION to another poster about whether he views Bettman's practices as "the NHL running well" you claim it's a straw man, yet you straw man my position as if I'm blaming Bettman 100%, when, in this very thread, I acknowledge he works for the owners and therefore is doing what they want, meaning the culpability rests on all of them. This leads me to suspect you aren't actually posting in good faith, but accusing me of things that you yourself engage in but I never did.
Also saying the other leagues are just as bad in regard to concussions is hardly an actual defense for Bettman's conduct on the matter.
I'm glad you can at least agree Colin Campbell's employment is a wholesale disgrace and that consequently the entire apparatus of discipline and rule enforcement in the NHL is at the very least highly suspect. I would have thought this matter alone, you know, the integrity of the rules and their enforcement, would be enough of a black mark on the NHL to be essentially unforgivable, but I suppose we have different thresholds of tolerance for rank and blatant corruption.
Ted Hoffman
The other Rick Zombo
- Dec 15, 2002
- 29,262
- 8,688
Before this post, you made 6 different posts attacking Bettman and blaming him for things you disagree with or want to complain about.
Not once in any of those 6 posts did you hint about anyone else being responsible. Saying "he's made the owners happy" and acknowledging he works for them isn't pointing the finger of blame at them; it's a passing remark that acknowledges reality, after which you immediately pivot back to attacking him for whatever comes to mind.
Since in 6 posts you've established and maintained a pattern of comments that direct blame squarely at Bettman without ever mentioning anyone else either specifically or generally as being responsible for the things you complain about, IMO it's pretty logical to conclude that you're only holding Bettman accountable.
The difference between me pointing out that you've constantly and consistently attacked only Bettman and no one else and your allegations of what others think or say is that (1) your posts back up my assertion that you've only blamed Bettman so far, (2) no one else has said the things you keep pinning on them, (3) no one else has come close to saying the things that you keep pinning on them, and (4) those other people can probably point to posts where they've in fact said something other than what you allege. [I leave it to them, if they choose, to do so.]
If you now, after 6 posts, want to utter that "culpability rests on all of them" then I suggest you start calling "all of them" out, instead of continuing to single out Bettman - who, as you acknowledge, works for the owners and who I'll point out yet again can do whatever they want whether he agrees with them or not - for your vitriol. Because "all of them" - whoever they are - are responsible, and many of the things you continue to complain about have been discussed here previously and we've highlighted why things do or don't happen.
If you want to argue I'm not "actually posting in good faith" I'll merely point out that I and everyone else can only rely on what you're saying, which I'd like to note again has shown a single-minded focus of your emotions toward one and only one individual across 6 posts. That's not my problem to solve; that's yours, and perhaps you need to be more clear when stating your thoughts, instead of singing a constant song of discontent and only changing tune belatedly after someone points out what you're saying.
Ad
Latest posts
-
-
-
F Gavin McKenna - Medicine Hat Tigers, WHL (2026 Draft)- Latest: Pavel Buchnevich
